Hi 


1 


■m 


>\\MMM"\,- 


mmwmmum 


Hi!i!i;iK;;,;;;i;!i:j 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



DODDSOaEDSS 



















%.^^ 
/"-. 










^^-n^.. 





: ."i q 










• e^^^t^^**^ O 



o . * • .0^ 












'^CHARACTER OF THOMAS JEFFERSON. 



In the work below alluded to, will be found a review of 
a peculiar character, to say the least of it, upon the re- 
cently published Biography of Thomas Jefferson. If one 
were asked, what object the evangelical critic had in view, 
it would be difficult to give a satisfactory answer ; if regard 
were to be had to the character of the Journal, his own 
declarations, and the nature of his performance. It would be 
easy, a priori^ to determine what kind of an article a profes- 
sor of the christian religion, (for such we are informed is 
the author of the one in question,) would be disposed to 
produce for insertion in a christian journal, upon the sub- 
ject of the biography of a distinguished man, like the late 
[^resident of the United States. One, too, who actually 
eads the exposition of the Reviewer's intentions, as spread 
•brth with some distinctness in an early stage of his pro- 
gress, will find as little difficulty in conjecturing what will 
be the nature of the scrutiny proposed to be instituted : 
but, alas ! one who discharges the melancholy task, be it 
spoken more in sorrow than in sarcasm, of following the 
author in his observations, will find himself utterly con- 
founded ] if, as has been said, consideration be had, at the 
same time, to the actual character of the article, the mani- 
festo of the critic's motives, and the peculiar nature of the 



•* Article No, 1, in the "New-York Review and Quarterly Church Journal," 
for March, 1837, being a Critique " upon the Life of Thomas Jefferson," by 
George Tucker, Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Vir- 



ginia. 



medium through which oue and the other are submitted to 
the pubHc. 

The imagination of a man, hke the present writer, im- 
pressed with a profound sense of the solemnity and purity 
of the christian rehgion, and entertaining the same exahed 
notion of those who have dedicated themselves to its 
ministration, would have very httle difficulty in following 
a clergyman, as he retires to his closet, with a book like the 
Biography of Jefferson, for the purpose of performing tbnt 
duty in reviewing it, which devolves upon him as tb^ 
editor or the critic of a religious journal. Looking dovDi 
from the height—far above the passions and prejudices of 
worldly men— upon which his holy metier places him ; 
regarding the frailties of the dead with something oi 
the feeling of Sterne's recording angel, he would be^'dis- 
tressed, if, in the discharge of his task, he should be 
obliged to hold them up to the public indignation. Pao-e 
by page^ would he anxiously follow the biographer, in his 
effort to trace the chequered career of his subject; and 
when some great thought was chronicled, or some great 
deed which made an epoch in his life, and his country's 
life, his bosom would swell with generous pride; while he 
would not be the less affected with sorrow, when historic 
truth compelled the recital of his moral imperfections. 
Conscious how erring must be the nature that required the 
warning voice from out Sinai's thunders, to keep it in the 
path of virtue— taught by his own passions how strong is 
the dominion of the Prince of Evil— a man himself, with 
ail the little foibles of monality— homo— hu7}ia7ii 7iihil 
alieunum*—heia\d of the great faith which has its orig'in 
in the weaknesses of our race— he would judge human 
actions with a humane and saddened spirit. Looking 
neither to the public nor the private life— leaving the first 
to history, and the second to his biographer— he would 



* Terence. 



oiiiy regard the ciiaracter of the pubhshed opinions upon 
the subjects of ethics and Christianity. These would be 
the products of mature thought, and thrown upon the 
world for consideration. They would be intended to in- 
fluence the public mind upon these great topics, and it 
would be but fair that they should be subjected to the ordeal 
of reason and of argument. Should they be such as were 
calculated to unsettle the foundations of public morality, 
or strike at the structure of religion, he, as one of the de- 
fenders of these high interests, would be bound to expose 
their nature, and resist their influence. This done, his 
obligations as the writer in a critical religious journal 
would end, and he would lay down his pen, with the con- 
sciousness of having done all that could be required of 
him by the most zealous christian, or the sternest moralist. 
Such is the manner and the spirit with which we should 
think a professor of Christianity would notice the biogra- 
phy of a distinguished public man. He ivoidd not set out 
with a useless and unfeeling inquiry into the state of pub- 
lic feeling respecting the illustrious dead, and the various 
mutations which it has undergone, from his appearance 
upon the world's stage, down to this moment, when the 
curtain of death has long since removed him from public 
observation. He would not profess to leave to other hands 
the task of portraying his career as a statesman, and yet 
under the miserable subterfuge of illustrating his personal 
character, leave no great political act, or opinion of his 
life unassailed. He would 7iot object to his biographer, that 
be had written naught save eulogy^ or elaborate defence 
of the moral defects of the deceased, and, with a proclaimed 
design to correct his partiality ^ hunt assiduously through 
his whole life in search of materials to blacken his reputa- 
tion, and throw ridicule upon his character. He would 
not abandon, with but one single exception, the only legiti- 
mate objects of clerical criticism, and under the magnani- 
mous determination of "stripping no one of their well- 



8 

earned laurels to decorate" him whose life was under con- 
sideration, leave no effort unmade which the odium Iheo- 
logicum could suggest, or critical acumen devise, to destroy 
his hold upon the affections of his countrymen. He would 
not pass by, unanswered, the bold doubts upon the sub- 
ject of the christian revelation, which his biographer says 
had reached the world against his wishes, and yet attempt, 
by a disingenuous argument, to snatch from his family 
the consolation solemnly given them before his death, 
that he belonged to one of the christian denomina- 
tions. He would not publicly acknowledge himself under 
obligations to the great dead, for services rendered his coun- 
try in the darkest hour of her history, and yet heap taunt 
upon taunt, sarcasm upon sarcasm, and argument upon 
argument, to depreciate the merit of his public acts, 
and hold him up to this and all coming ages as the great 
arch demon of infidelity, and the American Machiavel in 
politics and private life. No ! A pious man, a pro- 
fessor of Christianity, would not thus treat, one would 
suppose, the biography of a distinguished patriot. And 
yet, we confess, with unaffected regret, such seems to be an 
impartial sketch of the manner in which the Review is 
executed, which we have found in the March number of 
the " New- York Review and Quarterly Church Jour- 
nal." 

When we say that we have seen it with regret, we speak 
of one only of the emotions with which the perusal of it 
has been accompanied. The others were, astonishment 
and indignant mortification, that the pages of a journal 
dedicated to religion, and the pen of a hand consecrated to 
its holiest offices, should have been thus lamentably pros- 
tituted. When will the professors of the meek, forgiving reli- 
gion of our Saviour properly appreciate the character of the 
responsibilities they have so solemnly assumed ? When the 
nature of the sacrifices with which they are presumed to 
have sealed their compact with Him to whose services they 



are consecrate ? When the feelino^s, and thoughts, and 
dispositions, with which they are expected by their great 
Master to wahc through hfe, in the performance of their 
vocation ? When will they feel that they, the accredited 
ambassadors from the Great Power on High, are the repre- 
sentatives not only of his sovereignty on earth, but of his 
divine nature, and as such, false to their high trust, when 
they mingle in the personal passions and conflicts of those 
they come among? V¥hen will they understand, in all 
its truth, that they are persons taken from among men, and 
set apart for high purposes ; with nothing to do with this 
world, but to prepare those who live in it, for transla- 
tion to another ? These are questions which we often 
ask ourselves^ with the profoundest emotion, but w e 
have as yet received no satisfactory answer. Perhaps the 
fault is ours. We may estimate too highly the capabihties 
of man — we may have too exalted an idea of that religion 
which was confirmed, with gracious condescerision, by the 
interposition of divine power ; but we scarcely imagine 
the Church Journal critic will consider us obnoxious to 
censure for this. We have, indeed, a reverence for reli- 
gion, v/hich it would be vain for us to attempt to demon- 
strate by the use of any such language as we can control. 
Our spirit sinks prostrate in utter humiUation at the idea 
of its sublimity. Earth, with its vain show, passes away, 
and we stand front to front, as it were, with all the eternal 
grandeur of heaven. God is present to us in all his mighty 
attributes of Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Immortality. 
The stupendous scheme of christian revelation passes with 
its mighty shadow. The universal guilt which preceded 
it — the gloom of impending punishment — the incarnation 
of divinity — descent upon earth — persecution, insult — and 
the last act of the great tragedy, with all the dread para- 
phernalia of Jews, gibbets, and malefactors. These are 
the thoughts which sweep through our mind, filhng it with 

2 



10 

feelings of unutterable solemnity, whenever the subject of 
religion is mentioned in our presence. Its consolations 
are necessary to us all, at some period of our lives. 
Whether in the palace, or in the cottage ; whether born 
to the humblest lot, or destined to the proudest career ; 
whether happy, or taught the uses of sorrow. It fills us 
with benevolence — teaches us to regard the frailties of 
our fellow men with charity, calms our passions, and robs 
us of our prejudices and animosities. Such is religion, 
and such are its beautiful uses; but how badly illustrated 
by the reverend gentleman who has furnished the world 
with the critical article in the Quarterly Church Journal ! 
" He has brought with him to pohtics nothing but its pas- 
sions." Nothing of the spirit of religion, save that which 
has so often lighted up the fires of persecution. Under 
the surplice of the priest, there seems to have raged as 
ano-ry passions as ever boiled beneath the mantilla of the 
Spanish bravo. Charity, though so fervently inculcated by 
our Saviour and St. Paul,* has shed none of its softening 
influence over his nature. Justice has appealed in vain to 
his heart, though upon earth, to preach up justice among 
men. The feehngs of the living constitute no claim upon 
his consideration. The pride of a nation is crushed, and 
trampled upon with insulting mockery. The gratitude of 
human bosoms for illustrious services is laughed to scorn. 
The grave, whose sanctity is respected by the Pagan bar- 
barian, is violated by this apostolic missionary of the 
faith of civilized Christendom. With the sacred war-cry 
of God and the Church on his lips, he has pursued his 
illustrious victim through life with savage hostility. 
Breathing naught but the holiest fervor of rehgion, he 
has performed feats which would not have disgraced the 



♦ The greater part of the sermon on the mount is taken up in teaching the 
importance of charity.— tide 18th chap. Ist Epis. to Corinthians— 5th and 6th 
chap. Matthew. 



11 

disciple of Odin, or Manitou. Fighting under the 
cross of our Saviour, he has manifested a spirit 
better becoming the crescent of the Mussuhxian. Cold- 
blooded irony, and cutting taunt, not unworthy of Goethe's 
Mephistophiles in his most mocking humor, stir up the 
blood of the reader in this critical chef-d'oeuvre of the 
pastor. Sentiments are scattered here and there, which 
savor more of Paradise lost, than of Paradise to be 
regaiiied. 

"Study of revenge, immortal hate."* 

Rendered delirious by a holy horror of deistical opin- 
ions, he has furnished a striking illustration of the prmci- 
ples of the atheist. With an anxious zeal for the religious 
feelings of the rising generation, he has committed a most 
flagrant outrage upon those of the generation with which 
he is contemporary. For the wand of Peace, he has substi- 
tuted " the two-edged sword" of the Psalmist, and wields it 
he does with a vigor that would not have been vmbecom- 
ing in the battle-axe of the Lion-Hearted. in his conflict with 
the Saracen. War to the knife, appears to have been the fell 
determination of this pious militant. Where we expected 
the smile of compassion, our blood is chilled by the sneer 
of revenge. Where the suggestion of kind humanity, there 
the speculation of cold-blooded, unsympathizing hate. 
Where the glow of patriotism, intensified by christian feel- 
ing, there the mockery of the soulless sceptic, and the 
insensible ingrate. The genius of Calvin and Cranmer,t 
if it had not quailed in the presence of our religious war- 
rior, would have bowed in undissembled homage to his 
uncompromising spirit of hostility. Mary of England 
would have delighted to have honored him v/ith a seat 



* Milton. Speech of Satan. 

t" Calvin burnt Servetus at Geneva— Cranmer brought Arians and Ana- 
baptists to the stake."— Hume's His. of Eng. vol. iii. p. 538. 



12 

side by side with Lord North,* around the funeral pyre 
of Ridley, Latimer, and Hawkes.t He would have applied 
the torch with an iron pulse, and composed an admirable 
hymn in praise of the justice of her Catholic Majesty, to 
be chaunted while the work was going on. 

But, to be serious : what a piteous and melancholy spec- 
tacle has he furnished, of the worst passions of the bigot ! 
What a sad exhibition of the weakness of all human and 
heavenly restraints, when opposed to some of the evil pro- 
pensities of our nature ! What a preo;nant and portentous 
commentary upon the spirit of Christianity ! All this we 
say in a spirit of unaffected and untriumphing sorrow. 

" It was the fate of Thomas Jefferson to be at once more 
loved and praised by his friends, and hated and reviled by 
his enemies, than any of his compatriots." Such is the 
sentence we find in the Preface of the biographer of Mr, 
Jefferson, made in a spirit of historic truth, and philosophi- 
cal remark. It is an observation which would force itself 
upon every one who should come to know the manner in 
which Mr. Jefferson was regarded by his friends and foes, 
and yet our political divine is very far from admitting the 
equivocal compliment which it conveys. It is an observa- 
tion, which every philosophical writer, investigating the 
state of feeling among the contemporaries of a great man, 
would make, as presenting a curious moral phenomenon, 
not in itself a subject of honor, or infamy. It is a remark 
which history has recorded of many distinguished per- 
sonages, from Socrates and Aristides down to William Pitt 
and Napoleon. Scarce any great man, whose appear- 
ance and writings have formed an epoch in the his- 
tory of the human mind, from Aristotle down to 
Luther and Galileo, but has enjoyed the most ardent 



*Q,ueen Mary's cliief a^'cni in the persecution of tlu^ rfforiijers. — Hume's 
His. of Eng. 
tProtestanis burnt at tin- stake. 



13 

attachment of his friends, and the bitterest liostility of his 
enemies. George Washington himself, we beg leave, in 
opposition to our political divine, to say, constituted no 
exception to this fate of the preeminently great. There 
was a party in the United States, albeit unknown to him, 
that hated Washington with as cordial a hate as ever ani- 
mated the bosom of a High Churchman, against a dissent- 
ing heretic. All this is true ; but who ever, in noticing the 
lives of these distinguished men, took advantage of the fact, 
to draw conclusions injurious to their fame ? — to indulge in 
speculations as to the cause, as though token found, it must 
necessarily be fatal to their characters ? 

The peculiarity in the fate of Mr. Jefferson, it will be re- 
collected, consists in having been, at the same time, more 
loved im& more hated than any one of his compatriots; and 
the holy critic sets outto investigate the cause of this singular 
coexistence of opposite and extreme feelings. Now, it would 
strike any man of common sense, that in prosecuting this in- 
quiry, both feelings were equally important — the extreme 
love, as well as the extreme hate. The circumstance of a man 
enjoying the devoted affection of his friends, is not an 
unusual one in the lives of good men ; and the privilege of 
enjoying the special detestation of our enemies, is not so 
uncommon a one that our reverend Reviewer will not 
admit it, we think, to be illustrated by his own feelings 
toward Mr. Jefferson. It is the contemporaneous existence 
of the two feelings that constitute the phenomenon, and 
an inquiry into it as such, one would certainly deem it as 
important for the purpose, to discover the source of the 
love, as the hate. And yet our pious philosopher, after 
stating the fact in the endless variety of forms, half insinu- 
ating, and half conjectural, so well known to the practised 
advocate, (and which might almost induce one to believe 
that he himself had been brought up to the bar, and only 
now, like old Priam, when preparing for combat, put ou 



14 

unaccustomed armor — arma din desiieta humeris*) — 
after having enlarged and dwelt upon the question until it 
assumes a portentous importance in the eyes of the reader — 
after comparing the fate of Mr. Jefferson in this particular, 
with one,t the blameless purity of whose nature was never 
suspected by friend or foe, and with another,t whose image 
is now held in sainted reverence by all his countrymen, 
concludes his observations withouta single vjord as to the 
cause of the peculiar affection which he enjoyed from 
his friends ; and for the reason of the peculiar hatred, 
assiunes that in progress of time, as his character became 
better known, " less was discovered worthy of admira- 
tion" ! What justification the reverend gentleman can 
furnish for treating the subject in this disingenuous manner, 
we know not, unless it may be that in his extreme anxiety 
for the formation of his sentences, he loses sight of his 
sentiments, and m the gratification of his passions, he for- 
gets his philosophy. 

The next portion of the biography which claims the 
worthy pastor's consideration, is that in which allusion is 
made to Mr. Jefferson's religious opinions. We are no 
advocates, God knows, of the peculiar doctrines enter- 
tained by this illustrious man upon the subject of Chris- 
tianity, nor eire we the indiscriminate apologists of his 
character ; but we see no reason why his memory should be 
hunted down with unremitting rancor, because, in the 
soUtude of his closet, his mind came to certain conclusions 
about it ; and, in the confidence of epistolary intercourse, 
he communicated them to an early and long-tried friend. 
Still less do we see any reason why a pious man should 
embrace the occasion afforded by such private expressions 
of opinion, to charge another with " low trickery^ delibe- 
rate falsehood^ and a demoniacal spirit oj prosely- 
tism .'" Such is the eagerness of the critic to charge Mr. 



VirgiL t Madison. t Washington. 



15 

Jefferson with the latter crime, that he deems of no mo- 
ment his biographer's assertion, that his letters npon this 
subject were pubHshed contrary to his wishes. Now, we 
are so simple minded as to imagine that this is the very 
'•^jugulum causce,'' to use the pious gentleman's own ele- 
gant Latinity. Upon the truth or the falsity of this asser- 
tion, depends the criminality, or the innocence of "the 
third President of the United States." We are at this day, 
too far advanced in the science of mental philosophy to 
hold a man criminal for the involuntary opinions of his 
mind.* It is only when he publishes these opinions to the 
world, and endeavors to disseminate them, that he renders 
himself, if at all, obnoxious to censure. If Mr. Jefferson 
then, confined his views of Christianity to his own bosom, 
or communicated them in a half doubting, philosophical 
spirit, to the sacred confidence of a friend, he is clearly not 
liable to the rebuke of moral men, or the anathemas of 
the christian clergy. 

Perhaps the critic may deem equally unimportant 
the truth of his assertion with regard to the nature of 
Mr. Jefferson's conversations upon the subject of reli- 
gion. We shall not imitate his courtesy of language, 
and charge him with intentional misrepresentation ; 
but we have spent many years of our life in the immediate 
neighborhood of Mr. Jefferson — have dined at his table — 
listened to his conversation — and we religiously declare 
that we never heard from his lips any opinion upon reli- 
gion, nor did we ever hear that he was in the habit of 
expressing any to others. We know that up to the day of 
his death, his views upon this great topic were the source 
of mysterious conjecture among his neighbors. Doubts 
were entertained, from what cause we know not, just as 
they have been about Dr. Franklin and General Washing- 



* Jesus Christ never condemned, censured, nor judged any man for his 
errors of opinion. 



16 

tori and others ; but his outward observance of the Sab- 
bath, and his occasional appearance at the church of Mr. 
Hatch, in the adjoining village of CharlottesviJle, were 
very far from strengthening the opinions of those who 
were disposed to attribute deistical principles to him. 

The reverend gentleman's blood is now up, and he strikes 
about him with reckless fury, which, like the scorpion's, 
when begirt by fire, promises more injury to himself, than 
to any body else. He next makes a charge, which, in can- 
dor, I am forced to admit, he must have perceived to be 
utterly destructive of the one respecting the zeal for pro- 
sclytis7n^ if his faculties had been in iheir accustomed 
state of acuteness. " In the last years of his life, when 
questioned by any of his friends, he (Mr. J.) used to say 
he was a Unitarian." Such is the assertion of the biogra- 
pher, which the critic receives with the greatest thought- 
lessness and inconsistency, and immediately lays down, 
as a basis upon which to pile another pyramid of calumny. 
Just urging home upon the ex-president the fiend-like crime 
of innoculating others with his own bhghting infidelity, 
he now, forsooth, charges him with the opposite and in- 
consistent baseness of passing himself off for a member of 
one of the christian denominations. One moment a Me- 
phistophiles, coolly shutting out heaven from the view of 
the unfortunate, and alluring him on to a fatal compact 
with the Prince of Darkness, the next a worldly hypocrite, 
claiming for himself the protecting mantle of a christian 
sect ! Now, with Satan's banner unfurled over his head, 
beating up recruits to the impious standard, now a hoary 
dissembler, who, for temporal purposes, unrolls the fleur 
de lis of the christian Unitarian. 

Singular obliviousness and richness of imagination! 
It matters not that the represention in one form is 
inconsistent with his appearance in the other. They 
equally in their turn answer the cherished purpose' 
of defamation. The qualities may not harmonize — the* 



17 

parts may not correspond. But it is of little moment to 
the holy writer, who, only recollecting the license accorded 
the poet and the painter, quite forgets the limit which the 
king of Parnassus has assigned to such spirit of adventu- 
rous genius. 

"Nonut 
Serpentes avibus geminenter, tigribus agni." — Horace. 

But why does he pronounce, with such triumphant 
boldness, that Mr. Jefferson was not a Unitarian, and 
that he uttered a falsehood when he said he was ? Does 
he really believe it, and does he really think that he has 
demonstrated it conclusively? To admit the truth of the 
latter part of the inquiry, would be paying a compliment 
to his heart at the expense of his head, which, we take it, 
would be a species which would not prove very accepta- 
ble to his peculiar notions. When he affirms that mate- 
rialism was a received doctrine of Mr. Jefferson, and 
that therefore he could not have been a Unitarian, what 
does he mean? Cau he be bold enough, in spite of all 
that this great man has written, to step forth before the 
world, and proclaim him an apostle of the brutalizing 
materialism of Bolino^broke, Voltaire, Holbach, and Dide- 
rot? — a denier of the immortality of the soul, who levels 
his species to the same point in animal creation with the 
beasts of the field — the destroyer of heaven, who, at the 
same time disenchants this world — the fiend, who anni- 
hilates the hope of happiness hereafter^ and thus makes 
misfortune insupportable in this life ! Surely the pious 
writer could not have believed this of Mr. Jefferson, and 
we should be sorry, for the sake of human nature, to think 
that he designed it to be believed by others — and yet he 
says that materialism " was a received doctrine of Mr. 
Jefferson." There is one explanation which may exonerate 
him from the guilt of the intention, but he cannot be ad- 
mitted to the benefit of it, unless he will acknowledge that 
he is ignorant of that about which he has written, viz ; 

3 



18 

the Unitarian's creed, or that knowing it, he has wilfully 
misrepresented it. The materialism which Mr. Jefferson 
professed, it is not difficult to get at. It is the materialism 
of which he speaks in his letter to William Short, found in 
page 13th of the Review, and in the fourth volume of his 
correspondence. "The materialism of good works in 
contradistinction to the spirituaUsm of faith." Such 
is the dread materialism of the ex-president, and did not 
our theological critic know that the Unitarian preached 
the same doctrine? If he did not^ then has he "proved 
that he was grossly ignorant of his tenets."* If he didj 
then we must say, that to our minds there is something 
exceedingly "disingenuous" — something "savoring" of the 
littleness " of trick" — something which goes beyond the 
littleness of trick, and swells into the magnitude of a worse 
crime — in thus resisting Mr. Jefferson's claim to be consid- 
ered a Unitarian, upon the ground of his entertaining this 
doctrine. Thus inducing those who know nothing of the 
peculiar principles of the Unitarian Church, to believe that 
he was the propagator of the most demoralizing and 
degrading system that ever disgraced human lips, or 
was engendered in the madness of a demoniacal philosophy. 
Again, surely the reverend gentleman cannot be serious in 
his effort to exclude Mr. Jefferson from the church of 
the Unitarian, because, in his various musings upon man's 
moral nature, he questioned the wisdom of grief in the 
moral economy, and, in the unrestrained freedom of phi- 
losophical correspondence, communicated his doubts to 
a friend. — (page 12.) 

But admitting that Mr. Jefferson may, at one time of his 
hfe, have differed with the Unitarians about the exact 
character of Christ, whether an inspired prophet or not — 
ignorant as we are now bound in charity to believe the 



* Sparks' Inquiry into the Moral Tendency of Trinitarian and Unitarian 
Doctrines— pp. 309, 10, and 11. 



19 

reverend gentleman is, of their precise doctrines, would it 
not have been more charitable, and equcdly reasonable, to 
suppose, that in the solitude of old age, he had changed 
his opinions, and had dragged himself within a christian 
temple, to die, than that in the last days of his life, he 
should have repeatedly uttered a deliberate falsehood from 
the most dastardly motives ? How much more natural, a 
conclusion this to predicate of the deserted statesman, and 
the abandoned idol, (vide Reviewer's remarks, p. 7.) in the 
cheerlessness of his last evenings. But, alas ! charity is a 
stranger to the bosom of our pious critic, and probabilities 
based upon moral physiology are not dreamt of in his 
science ! 

But admitting that Mr. Jefferson never w^as during his 
life, nor at the time of his death, an Unitarian, why this 
furious zeal and ungracious eagerness to snatch from his 
family the consolation which the belief affords ? Why, 
when he tells them before his death that he had prayed in 
a christian church, and hoped for a christian's forgiveness^ 
does the pious writer charge him with uttering a falsehood, 
and thus cruelly lacerate their sensibilities'? 

But he stops not here, nor with this. In the following page, 
speakingof a memorandum in Mr. Jefferson's J. /^a respect- 
ing some conversations which he had with Clarke and 
Rush, upon tlie subject of General Washington's religious 
opinions, he makes these observations : 

" Nor does such a man endeavor to give currency to his 
opinions by seeking to array in their support the influence 
of high and honored names. And finally, if he be really 
honest in his doubts, if the hatred of a had heart be not 
mistaken for the perplexities of an embarrassed head, he 
will scorn the baseness of leaving behind him a written 
record, implicating the departed, and not to be used until 
after his own death; so that when produced, the calumni- 
ated will be past the power of denial, and the calum- 



20 

iliator safe from the world's indignant expression of repro- 
bation ! !"— p. 15. 

What a compHcation of atrocities is here attributed in 
a single paragraph, to a public benefactor, now in his 
grave, by a minister of a religious sect ! What a fright- 
ful cluster of crimes, black as night, has the hand of a 
clergyman here furnished, to adorn the memory of arr 
illustrious patriot ! ! 

In the first sentence Mr. Jefferson is charged, in the eager- 
ness of proselytism, of arraying the "influence of high and 
honored names" in support of his infidel doctrines. In the 
second, if any thing is intelligible save the ambition of 
fine loriting^ his sincerity in these very abominable 
doctrines is itself questioned — and he is accused of 
attributing them to distinguished cotemporaries, not for 
the purpose, but the instant before affirmed, of securing their 
reception among men — but with the view of blasting their 
fame in after ages, and thus gratifying " the hatred of a 
bad heart" ! ! One moment, he paints him a furious infi- 
del, with hot and unholy enthusiasm, advancing his fatal 
principles under the cegis of great men's names — the next, 
an unbeliever in his own damnable infidelity, ("not honest 
in his doubts,") and attributing it to Washington and others 
to satisfy the monstrous and immeasurable hate of his 
dial)olical bosom. And this attribution, too, not during 
their mutual lives, when the effect of such calumny might 
have been grateful, if ever, to a spirit soured, as he says, 
by personal jealousy, but reserved with cold-blooded vin- 
dictiveness through many years, to be made known when 
they were both in ilieir graves — the libeller and the libel- 
led — and their souls perhaps before the judgment seat of 
their God ! ! AH that private memoirs, or the annals of his- 
tory, or our own experience tell us of revenge, fade into utter 
insignificance by contrast with this act of the third Presi- 
dent of the United States ! The genius of the poet, occu- 
pied with the passion, never conceived any thing more 



21 

atrocious ! The world has ever admired the lago of 
Shakspeare, and thought nature could no farther go ; but 
the revenge of the Lieutenant is tame when compared with 
this of the author of the Declaration of Independence, 
looking, as it does, beyond the grave for gratification, and 
providing, with epicurean forecaste, for the pleasures of ano- 
ther world ! How hot must be the pious critic's own pas- 
sions, to have induced him to attribute such to others ! 
How any being, with the humanity of our nature about 
him, can deliberately charge another with such an inten- 
tion, without evidence which no mind can resist, is incon- 
ceivable to us, except upon the supposition of a hatred as 
intense as that which he supposes to have prompted the 
intention itself But how a christian, and a christian 
minister, can essay to affix such an atrocity to the memory 
of a man who devoted his whole life to his country, is, we 
confess, scarcely comprehensible to us upon any supposi- 
tion; or if upon any, upon such a one as respect to his 
profession and ourselves prevents us fi cm alluding to. 
Were not the different charges utterly c . litradictory 
of each other, we shoulJ perhaps think it ^vOrth while 
to stop for a moment to expose the absurdity and utter 
groundlessness of this among others. Fortunately for 
Mr. Jefferson's memory, they will but serve to furnish ano- 
ther illt.stration of the intensity of the oditim theologicum, 
or of the strange blunders into which a man of sense is 
sometimes led by tha influence of his passions. 

A few sentences after the Reviewer has made this accu- 
sation against Mr. Jefferson, he goes on to make some ob- 
servations as to the manner in which the calumny has 
been given to the world. " Wilhngto insinuate," he says, 
" that he, (General Washington,) was like minded with 
himself, (Jefferson,) he yet shrinks from the responsibility 
of an explicit declaration, and screens himself under the 
convenient cover of " Dr. Rush tells me," &c. Now, 
there are no remarks made any where by the reverend 



22 

gentleman which more clearly show the spirit with which 
he was actuated toward the memory of Mr. Jefferson, and 
with which he sat down to write the article upon his life. 
He seems utterly to forget the most material facts, and goes 
on to draw his conclusions, and hurl his denunciations 
without the slightest regard to them. What has Mr. 
Jefferson done, and what is the crime imputed to him ? 
While Secretary of State, and President of the United 
States, he was in the habit, it seems, of recording his daily 
conversations with the most distinguished men, for pur- 
poses, it must be presumed, of future history, or private 
memoir. The journal in which he kept these conversa- 
tions, he termed his Ana. He made no use of it during 
his life, and since his death it has been published by his 
executor, whether with, or against his wishes, no human 
being can pretend to say. In this journal are found some 
observations which were made to him by Asa Clarke, and 
Gouverneur Morris, upon the subject of General Washing- 
ton's religious opinions. These are the facts. From the 
saloon, then, it appears, he retires to his closet : and there, 
as a historian, or curious observer of the characters of 
men, he records a fact which he had just received upon 
the credit of a distinguished gentleman respecting the sen- 
timents of another, still more distinguished, and while 
writing down the conversation, goes on as it were, thinking 
aloud to himself, and states what he had heard from ano- 
ther individual upon the same subject. Here is the whole 
head and front of his offending — ^it hath this extent — 
no more. Upon these facts as a basis the charitable critic 
of the Church Journal proceeds to found two distinct ac- 
cusations : that of cowardice, and falsehood in two ways — 
suppression of the truth, as well as suggestion of that 
which is false. "Mr. Jefferson was willing to accuse 
General Washington of being an infidel," he says, "but 
shrank from the responsibility of an explicit declaration of 
the fact, and screened himself under the convenient cover 



23 

of Dr. Rush, and others." How absurd is all this ! What 
responsibility is there in making an « explicit declaration" 
which is only to see the light when the author of it is dead, 
as well perhaps as the person against whom it is made 1 
The writer seems utterly to forget that this record concern- 
ing General Washington was made in an Ajia reserved, if 
for publication at all, for posthumous publication, and that 
if Mr. Jefferson had been actuated by the fell hate and 
desire of injury attributed to him— utterly regardless of 
truth as he says he was— he would have stepped forth 
from behind the screen of other men's names, and boldly 
avowed the truth as of his own knowledge. He may be 
disposed to get out of the difficulty by saying that he 
alludes to a different species of responsibility, viz : moral 
responsibihty. But surely our pious pastor is not so igno- 
rant of the science of ethics as not to know that there is 
as much moral turpitude in the suppression of the truth, 
as there is in the declaration of the false ; and that there 
consequently could have been no greater moral responsi- 
bility in an explicit declaration of the fact of Washing- 
ton's infidelity, than in adopting the hearsay evidence of 
others about it, when, conscious as the critic says Mr. Jef- 
ferson was, at the time, that it was utterly false ! Again, 
says the Reviewer, " he had it in his power to speak, of his 
own knowledge— why cite Mr. Morris r Incomprehensi- 
ble forgetfulness a second time ! Can he not keep the fact 
in his mind that the paper from which he extracts is a 
contemporaneous record of the conversations of the day, 
and not a biographical article of General Washington' 
professing among other things, to explain the nature of his 
religious sentiments. A mere memorandum made from time 
to time, of what he heard, and not speculations after 
death as to the character of his views respecting Christi- 
anity. Had it been of the latter nature, it would have 
been proper for him to have stated the results of his own 
observations, if indeed they would have contradicted the 



24 

testimony of Asa Clarke and Gouvemenr Morris. Had 
they, on the other hand, been such as would have confirmed 
it — notwithstanding the pious gentleman thinks " a noble 
frankness should have prompted him to state the fact" — yet 
as we think " there is no philanthropy in depriving a fel- 
low creature of something, which, however doubtful, yet 
imparts comfort to him who believes it," (page 15) — and 
surely the name of Washington as an infidel would have 
had this tendency ; it would have been better, it appears 
to us, to have withheld such confirmation. 

Again, the captious critic finds fault with Mr. Jefferson 
for recording the conversations at all, which he had with 
Mr. Morris ; and, forsooth, because it appears from the lan- 
guage in which he alludes to Mr. Morris's declaration 
upon this occasion, as well as from another part of his 
Ana, that he did not give full credit to the intimacy which 
he, (Mr. M.) claimed with General Washington, and that 
he thought him a sanguine man, apt to believe every thing 
true that he desired to be so. Now, all this proceeds from 
the ever continuing forgetfulness of the character of the 
Ana, and the invincible determination on the part of the 
critic, to represent Mr. Jefferson as the public prosecutor 
against General Washino^ton's fame. Mr. Jefferson was 
not making out a case against Washington, to use lan- 
guage which may be more familiar to the pious gentle- 
man's ears. If he had, he probably would have reported 
the testimony of Mr. Morris, without the language which 
seems to diminish its claims to credibility. He would have 
carefully abstained from any observation calculated to im- 
pair his right to public confidence, and thus perhaps have 
conclusively established the guilt of the first President 
upon unexceptionable testimony. But this was not his 
object. He did not desire to make the world believe that 
Washington was an infidel. He wished to record facts, 
such as they were communicated to him. He gave 
the evidence upon which they rested, for better or for worse, 



25 

and indifferent as a faithful chronicler whether it was re- 
ceived or not, he did not hesitate to express his opinion 
of the character of the witnesses by w^hich it was fur- 
nished. This is the simple solution of a matter which 
has afforded the malice of our Reviewer the richest mate- 
rials of defamation. With his imagination disordered by 
the fumes of a theological hate, he can see nothing in 
every object but horns and a cloven foot. He cannot con- 
ceive the possibility of a man sitting down to record facts 
in a philosophical spirit of observation. Drawing his rea- 
sons from his own nature, he deems such occupation 
insipid to a man of spirit and sense, and at once proceeds 
to animate him with rancorous hatred, and to present him 
to the reader in all the appalHng features of a deliberate 
slanderer. 

The next subject in the biography which furnishes field 
for the display of the critic's invective^ is Mr. Jefferson's 
views respecting the University of Virginia. He denounces 
him for " having designed to make this institution a place 
" where the minds of young and unsuspecting youth were 
" to be poisoned with the venom of atheism — where they 
" were to be taught that the Sabbath was to be abolished— 
'' that God Almighty was not the Lord of the universe — 
" and where a deliberate attempt was to be made to over- 
" throw the whole fabric of the christian religion," etc. — 
(pp. 18, 19.) Now, can it be believed possible, that there is 
not the slightest foundation for all this overwhelming mass 
of accusation — this charge of conspiracy so gigantic against 
the religion of half the world — this purpose so Satanic in its 
conception and means of execution 7 Never did one word, 
that we have ever heard, reach the ears of the public, 
respecting the religious opinions which were to be tauo-ht 
at the University ! Mr. Jefferson never contemplated the 
establishment of a professorship in any way connected 
with the subject of Christianity ; and in the original plan 
embracing the different departments of the college, not 



26 

one syllable is to be found upon the matter. Never in the 
appointment of professors, was any inquiry made, that we 
have known, in allusion to their peculiar principles of reli- 
gion. Never in any of his various official and private 
conversations with them, from the origin of the insti- 
tution up to the day of his death, did we ever hear, 
(and we were ourselves a student there for many years,) 
that he had expressed any wish or desire, in any way con- 
nected with his peculiar views upon the subject. So utterly 
and entirely destitute of foundation is this whole fabric of 
the pious writer's imagination, that even Mr. Jefferson's 
ideas of Christianity were ever a matter of doubt among 
the young men of the University ! 

The reader will be astonished to learn that tlie sole justi- 
fication for all that the critic has said upon this subject, 
is to be found in a private coiijideiitial letter to Mr. Short,* 
in which Mr. Jefferson takes occasion to animadvert with 
some bitterness upon what he supposes to be the charac- 
teristic spirit and practice of the different religious denomi- 
nations, as displayed in their controversies with each other, 
and in their denunciations of the appointment of Dr. 
Cooper, to a professorship in a literary institution. A sim- 
ple figure of speech, 'perhaps not in the best taste^ by 
which to illustrate the power of public opinion, he denomi- 
nates it " the Lord of the universe," is, what seems to his 
alarmed and Gluixotic fancy, incontrovertible evidence of 
a desimi to dethrone the God of the universe !t The 



* Jefferson's Correspondence, vol. iv. p. 320. 

tThe probability of Mr. Jefferson's having designed to have such doctrines 
taught at the University of Virginia, as well as the character of his conversa- 
tions upon the subject of religion, and his imputed proselyting spirit generally, 
may be judged of correctly by reference to the following expressions, in a let- 
ter of his to Mr. Adams, dated August 22d, 1813 : 

"Very soon after my letter to Dr. Priestley, the subject being still in my 
mind, I had leisure during an abstraction from business, for a day or two, while 
on the road, to think a little more on it, and to sketch more fully than I had 
done then, a syllabus of the matter which I thought should enter into the 



27 

solution of the whole matter, and at the same time the 
extent of Mr. Jefferson's criminahty upon this subject, will 
be found in the simple fact, that, from an unwilhngness to 
favor one sect more than another, religion was not incor- 
porated in the original plan of the University. It is this 
atrocious impartiality, which has kindled the towering in- 
dignation of our pious warrior, and called down his anathe- 
mas upon the memory of the unfortunate ex-president of 
the United States. Religion was not excluded— nor was 
it included in the University. All the different denomina- 
tions were invited to preach, but none were invested with 
the exclusive privileges of inculcating their peculiar doc- 
trines from the lecture rooms of the college. It was not 
intended to be an arena for the display of gladiatorial theo- 
logy—with how much propriety, we willingly leave it to 
the public to determine. What he means by ''■ the experi- 
ment failing," we confess we do not understand, for reli- 
gion has no farther connection with the University at this 
moment, than it had upon the day when its halls were first 
thrown open.* 

We shall pass over with but one single remark the pious 
critic's observations upon what he is pleased to term Mr. 
Jefferson's standard of moral propriety. And it is this, 
that we are astonished that any just man should be disen- 
genuous enough to take advantage of an accidental ex- 
pression, thrown out for the purpose of showing that no 



work. I wrote to Dr. Rush, and there ended all my labor on the subject. 
Himself and Dr. P. being the only depositories of my secret. The fate of my 
letter to Dr. P., after his death, was a warning to me on that of Dr. Rush ; 
and at my request, his family were so kind as to quiet me by returning my 
original letter and syllabus. By this you will be sensible how much interest I 
take in keeping myself clear of religious disputes before the public. Yet I 
enclose it to you with entire confidence, free to be perused by yourself and 
Mrs. A., but by no one else, and to be returned to me." 

* Messrs. Madison, Monroe, Chapman Johnson, and other religious gentle- 
men, were Trustees of the University with Mr. Jefferson. 



28 

argument can be drawn against the existence of a moral 
sense from the different estimation of the same act in dif- 
ferent societies, and represent it as containing a full expo- 
sition of views respecting the criterion of moral propriety.* 
The reverend critic, finding the errors of the ex-president 
upon metaphysics, however, alittle less easy of demonstration 
than those in religion, nowbounds off, and goes slashing and 
cutting away at his character in a general manner. He finds 
him guilty of the horrible crime of sensitiveness to public 
opinion, and to this u7ipardo7iahle iceakness attributes the 
composition of the journal so often before alluded to — the 
Ana ! Charges him, en passant^ with the Ittle peccadillo of 
caUing God solemnly in attestation to conscious lies, and 
ends by representing him in the humiliating character of a 
second Nestor or Cicero, recounting to his listening coun- 
trymen the tale of his exploits. As an American citizen, 
proud of Mr. Jefferson's fame, the feeling pastor sheds tears 
of mortification and regret at this voluntary self abase- 
ment !— (pp. 22, 23.) 

Having but a few pages back denounced the ex-presi- 
dent, the reader will recollect, for foully slandering General 
Washington, to gratify his malignant hatred, he now says, 
alluding to the memoranda in his Ana^ that as " no rivalry 
was to be apprehended" between them, he could sometimes 
speak of him favorably — while he goes on to remark, one 
fourth of all his malicious 07i dits are levelled against him 
whom he supposed to be his most dangerous competitor for 
the highest honors of his country ! Hamilton — Jefferson's 
most dangerous competitor for the Presidency of the Uni- 
ted States ! How well has our political divine read the 
political annals of his country, and how profound are his 
observations upon th^m ! But we forget. This is the 
exact point in the Review at which the holy gentleman 



* Vide page 20 of the Review. 



29 

doffs his surplice, and puts on the civil dress of the politi- 
cian. Here we greet him in a new character, and see his 
genius under a ditFerent phasis. Here we find that the 
natural strength of his abiUties is only surpassed by their 
versatility, and that his excellence in one role, is only paral- 
leled by the Protean facility with which he assumes other 
characters, and ranges at will through the various depart- 
ments of the critical drama. 

We will not occupy any space with observations upon 
the subject of the critic's allusion to the Mazzei letter, 
satisfied that Mr. Jefferson's correspondence with Mr. 
Van Buren, and the explanation of his biographer, 
furnish a satisfactory defence from every charge, ex- 
cept that of a too vague phraseology, and an exag- 
gerated style, in which his morbid fears of Federalists — 
like those of Mr. Burke upon the subject of the French 
revolution — had led him to indulge. As for the letter to 
Colonel Burr, an undue importance has been given to it, 
we think, as well by the peculiar attempt on the part of 1/ 
the biographer to explain it,* as by the remarks of the Re- 
viewer in condemnation. To admit that it is not charac- 
terized by the candor which marks the confessions of the 
Catholic to his priest, or the young maiden to her lover, 
is what we readily do ; but who ever looked for, or what 
is more to the purpose, who ever found such, in the com- 
munications of politicians or statesmen ? Volto sciolto, 
pensieri stretti, is a maxim which having long regulated 
the conduct of ministerial and diplomatic men in Europe, 
was not, we beg leave to inform our critical censor, first 
introduced into this country by Mr. Jefierson, nor has it 
been repudiated since his death. However much we may 
regret it, we cannot make it otherwise, and he who looks 
for the same frankness between politicians and public men, 
that ought to characterize the intercourse of private gentle- 

* Vide Tucker's Life of Jefferson, vol. ii. p. 76. 



30 

men, will only expose his own simplicity. " I had endea- 
vored," says Mr. Jefferson, ^' to compose an administration 
whose talent, integrity, names, and dispositions, should at 
once inspire unbounded confidence in the public mind. 
I lose you from the list."* Now that Colonel Burr at the 
time this letter was written was considered by a large ma- 
jority of the people of the United States, a man of talents 
and integrity, there is conclusive evidence in the result 
just then made known of the election for President and 
Vice-President. He had received an equal number of 
electoral votes with Mr. Jefferson himself! Whatever then 
might have been Mr. Jefferson's private feelings toward 
Colonel Burr, there was certainly no duplicity in desig- 
nating him as one whose talents and integrity would 
" inspire unbounded confidence in the public mind." He 
does not allude, nor is there, singular enough to say, one 
single word in the whole letter respecting his per- 
sonal impressions, or individual sentiments toward Colonel 
Burr. He is spoken of solely as one of those " gentlemen 
who possessed the public confidence." As to his talents, 
Mr. Jefferson admits, and it would have been folly in any 
one to have denied that Colonel Burr possessed talents of 
a very superior order, that might have made him eminently 
useful in the service of his country. Hence the expres- 
sion of his opinion as to his capacity " for rendering sub- 
stantial service to the public." As to his confidence in 
Colonel Burr's patriotism, and disposition to devote his 
talents to the public good, there could have been no doubt 
in Mr. Jefferson's mind even in 1806, as we find by a con- 
versation which he had with Colonel Burr, the particulars 
of which he has himself recorded, and which the Reviewer 
has quoted in page 13 of his article. " I observed to him," 
he says, " that I had a confidence if he were employed, that 



* Correspondence, vol, iii. p. 444. 



31 



he would use his talents for the public good." In the Ana 
however, we find this observation respecting Colonel Burr • 
"1 had never seen Colonel Burr till he came as a member 
ot the Senate. His conduct very soon mspired me with 
distrust. I habitually cautioned Mr. Madison against 
trusting him too much. I saw afterward, that under 
General Washington's and Mr. Adams' administration, 
whenever a great military or diplomatic appointment was 
to be made, he came post to Philadelphia, to show himself, 
and m fact that he was always at market, if they wanted 
him. He was told by Dayton, in 1800, that he might be 
Secretary at War ; but this bid came too late. With" these 
mipressions of Colonel Burr, there never had been an inti- 
macy between us, and but little association. When I 
destined him for a high appointment, it was out of respect 
for the favor he had obtained with the republican party 
by his extraordinary exertions and success in the New- 
York election in 1800." 

Now, between this and the preceding letter and conver- 
sation, we confess we do not see the utter contradiction 
and inconsistency which seems so apparent to the critic's 
mmd. The - distrust" here meant was evidently nothing 
more than doubts entertained respecting the strength of 
his attachment to the democratic party, of which he, Colo- 
nel Burr, and Mr. Madison were members, and hence the 
assertion which soon follows in relation to his willingness 
to have taken office under General Washington and Mr 
Adams, and the attempt of Dayton to buy him over by the 
offer of the Secretaryship of War. There can be no doubt 
of the correctness of this interpretation, and the reverend 
gentleman must have known it at the time he quoted the 
different expressions for the purposes of abuse. Now, 
between a disposition to abandon one party for the sake of 
participating in the administration of the country through 
the influence of another, and a determination to make use 
of the power, when thus obtained, for the public good 



32 

there is no necessary incompatibility. We are very far 
from vindicating the too common crime of desertion of 
party for the sake of office, but certainly the mere fact 
is not irreconcilable with the most devoted patriotism, 
and therefore Mr. Jefferson's distrust of Colonel Burr's 
fidelity to the democratic party is not necessarily inconsis- 
tent with the most decided expression of his belief, that if 
employed he would devote his talents to the public good. 
An ardent desire to be of service to your country, accom- 
panied with a conviction that the party to which you be- 
long will never furnish you with the means, might prompt 
an individual to such a step. This was the justification 
proffered by the celebrated Mr. Canning for his political 
apostacy, and it has been thought a good one. But v/hether 
it is or not, no one ever questioned his entire devotion to 
the interests of England, though he had purchased the 
control of her destinies by the voluntary abandonment of 
the political party to which he stood pledged from his 
youth. If this be correct reasoning, what becomes of the 
charges of duplicity, dishonesty, and systematic deception, 
which our pious Reviewer has poured forth, with such 
friendly prodigality, upon the subject of this letter of Mr. 
Jefferson to Colonel Burr ? 

The next aspect in which our clergyman presents him- 
self to the reader, is, oh ! fons lachrymorutn^ as another 
Captain Bobadil, commentating with choice phrase upon 
the celebrated custom of the " DuelloJ'' and expounding 
with rare felicity the whole •' Code of Honor P In this most 
warlike guise he makes an insidious attack upon Mr. Jef- 
ferson's character as a man of courage, indulging in sneers 
at his conduct during the invasion of Virginia by Arnold, 
and hunting up old abortive movements of political and 
personal foes in the Legislature of that State, for the pur- 
pose of lending color to the insinuation. And yet, con- 
scious that the subject is not becoming a " professor" of 
religion, he attempts a miserable apology by saying that he 



33 

should not have touched the question of courage at all, 
but for " the fact that his biographer repelled the charge 
of cowardice by the production of what he considered 
equivocal proof of firmness of nerve." Now v^hat 
wretched disingenuousness is all this, and how unworthy 
a man of truth and piety ! Why, if this had been the 
only reason, did he not confine himself to the question as 
to what testimony, the giving, or the acceptance of a chal- 
lenge furnishes of bravery ? Why allude in a contemptu- 
ous manner to Mr. Jefferson's conduct when governor? 
Why recall the recollection of the impeachment attempted 
to be got up against him in the Legislature of Virginia, 
and omit to say that it signally failed, and that a resolution 
of entire approbation of his conduct was afterwards miani- 
mously passed ]* 

But why, above all things, did he not admit Mr. Jeffer- 
son's willingness to afford this proof of courage, as asserted 
by his biographer, and go on to argue its insufficiency to 
sustain his inference? Why say that the fact of having 
intended to send a cartel could come alone from 
him, and consequently was not entitled to credence, 
when he must have known, that Mr. Tucker could 
have derived it as well from the " second" ; and most pro- 
bably did 7 Why, to prove that Mr. Jefferson did not 
design to send the challenge at all, does he distort the 
biographer's language, and make him say that he aban- 
doned the idea " because his second refused to bear his 
challenge," when he in reality says, that he abandoned it 
because his friend did not "second his purpose" ? (p. 33.) A 
man who should apply to the reverend gentleman himself, to 
bear a cartel to another, and should altogether relinquish 
the intention of sending one, because the reverend gentle- 
man, albeit somewhat belligerent, should decline this office 



Tucker's Life—p. 156-7. 

5 



34 

of friendship, would be perhaps a coward. But a gentle- 
man who consults a friend in whom he has confidencCj 
and is by that friend persuaded that the cause does not 
warrant an appeal to arms, or that some peculiar circum- 
stances would render such a step highly unbecoming in 
him — and in consequence revokes " his determination to 
challenge" — may be as brave a man as ever stood in the 
tented field. " It becomes not a professor" of Christianity 
" to adduce such evidence" of cowardice as is furnished by 
an unwillinorness to send a challeno-e to a mortal combat, 
"Young men are ready enough to adopt the belief, that what 
" the world calls wounded honor can only be healed by 
" murder, and it is not necessary to countenance indirectly 
'•their false notions," (p. 33.) by laboriously attempting to 
despoil Mr. Jefferson of the honor of having designed to send 
a cartel ; and thus indisputably admitting it to be an inten- 
tion, the execution of which would have conferred some 
renown, and afforded some proof of courage, and the omis- 
sion to execute which reflects some disgrace, and exhibits 
some timidity. The charge of cowardice is a very grave 
one, and calculated seriously to diminish our respect for 
any man, however great his mental or moral qualities. 
The one against Mr. Jefferson rests entirely, it appears, upon 
the fact of his retreat from Monticello at the approach of the 
British, under Tarleton, during the war of the revolution. 
Now, surely the pious gentleman could not have expected 
him to have remained, and opposed, single handed, whole 
troops of cavalry, flushed, too, with victory, and led on by the 
Murat of the American war. It is of no avail to think of 
those precedents which his classical learning suggests 
to his recollection. The cases, if he will examine them 
closely, he will find to vary materially in their circum- 
stances. The valiant Roman* that he has read of in his 



* Horatius Codes — Livv, lib. 2. 



35 

Livy, who kept back the embattled hosts of Porsena with his 
single arm, encountered them, he will recollect, upon a 
bridge, and thus fought to immense advantage. Now there is 
no such structure between Monticello and Charlottesville 
upon which the author of the Declaration of Independence 
could have posted himself to check the career of an ad- 
vancing enemy. Great Peleus' son, who could alone turn 
the tide of battle at will, was the conqueror of him, (this mo- 
dern commentator upon chivalry cannot have forgotten.) who 
possessed, according to the blind bard, the strength of two 
degenerate men even of his days.* And recollecting how 
much the human race has declined in vigor since the time of 
Homer, Achilles, it is fair to presume, must have been more 
than a match for six such modern heroes as Thomas Jeffer- 
son. Thus the pious gentleman perceives the gross injustice 
of founding any condemnation of the third President of the 
United States, upon a comparison of his acts with the 
heroism of the Roman and Grecian ages. But to speak 
seriously, had Mr. Jefferson remained at Monticello, and 
suffered himself to be taken prisoner, it would no doubt 
have been highly acceptable to Colonel Tarleton and the 
British nation, but it would have hardly won any other 
fame for him than that of the most egregrious folly. 

We now come to the critic's opinion of the peculiar cha- 
racter of Mr. Jefferson's mind, but as our remarks are 
already too much extended, we willingly leave the public 
to judge of its justness by an examination of his works. 
His reputation as a bold and lofty thinker, a profound 
statesman, beautiful writer, and brilliant philosophical 
genius, is acknowledged wherever the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, and the Notes on Virginia, have gone, and it is 



A ponderous stone bold Hector heaved to throw. 

* * * 

Not two strong men the enormous weight could raise, 
Such men as live in these degenerate days. — Iliad, Book xii. 



36 

not likely will be much impaired by the criticisms of the 
Church Journal clergyman. We shall, for the same rea- 
son, pass over the remarks upon many of Mr. Jefferson's 
notions upon government, the institutions of our country, 
the currency, etc., and shall come directly to the last 
serious attack upon his veracity as a man, and his reputa- 
tion as the writer of the Declaration of Independence ; 
and we must premise that we see no good reason why this 
controversy should have ever originated. Mr. Jefferson, 
it appears, is alleged by our critic to have been aware of 
the existence of " the Mecklenburg Declaration of Inde- 
pendence" at the time he wrote the one of '76, and to have 
borrowed from it four expressions : and he is indirectly 
charged with falsehood in the letter which he wrote to Mr. 
Adams in 1819, doubting its authenticity, and denying 
that he had ever seen it.*— (p. 55.) Now, even did we 
think Mr. Jefferson a much worse man than our pious 
critic thinks him, we cannot for a moment suppose that he 
would have deemed it necessary, as the author of the 
Declaration of Independence, to have denied that he had 
seen the Mecklenburg draft, and had taken from it the 
alleged expressions, unless indeed — what we believe to be 
the fact — he was compelled to do so by truth. Can any one 
imagine that he could have seriously apprehended that the 
immortal honor of having composed the greatest state 
paper in the world, could be impaired by an acknowledg- 
ment of having incorporated into it, from the Mecklenburg 
Declaration, all that its most enthusiastic admirer could 
suppose worthy of being stolen ? Again, who for a mo- 
ment, that knows any thing of human nature, can think 
that the man who had been President of this great repub- 
lic, and had won for himself imperishable glory by a whole 
life of devoted patriotism, would run the risk, in the even- 



♦ Jefferson's Correspondence, vol. ii. pp. 412-14. 



37 

ing of his days, of being publicly branded as a liar, rather 
than admit a plagiarism of four ordinary phrases in one of 
his political productions ? The first of the expressions 
which he is afiirmed to have taken, viz : — " dissolve the 
political bands which have connected" — so far from hav- 
ing the merit of beauty, has not even that of correctness. 
We cannot dissolve a band — we can only cut it, or break 
it, " Dissolving the political connection" — " absolving from 
all allegiance" — "are and of right ought to be," three 
other phrases in the two instruments which are quoted as 
identical, the reader will be amazed to learn, constitute al- 
most the entire hodrj of the celebrated original resolu- 
tion of Independence^ onoved in the Convejition at Phila- 
dcljjhia^ by Richard Henry Lee, of Yirginia. " Resolved, 
" that these United Colonies are and of right ought to he 
free and independent States ; that they are absolved from 
all allegiance to the British crown ; and that all j)olitical 
connexion between them and the state of Great Britain is 
and ought to be totally dissolved," etc. etc.* 

Now which, we ask our pious critic, is most probable, 
that Mr. Jefferson borrowed these phrases from this resolu- 
tion which called the Committee for draughting a Declara- 
tion of Independence into existence, and was before him 
when he commenced preparing the one which he after- 
ward submitted, or that he took them from the celebrated 
Mecklenburg original, which we shall presently show, it 
is fair to presume, never went beyond the borders of North 
Carolina? Mr, Lee, however, it is to be presumed, by a 
parity of reason, will be said also to have borrowed from 
the Mecklenburg decree. This must be proved for the 
sake of consistency, and we hope our Reviewer and the 
North Carolinians will look to it in their next article upon 
the subject. 



Vide Journals of Congress. 



38 

" We pledge to each other our Uves, our fortunes, and 
our sacred honor/' is the last of the celebrated duplicate 
sentences. It is well enough, but is it not such an expres- 
sion as might occur to many an eloquent man, when wishing 
to dictate the most solemn oath, by which men in an hour 
of intense interest and deep danger, could consecrate them- 
selves to a sublime purpose ? In such a moment we should 
naturally pledge every thing we consider most sacred. 
First, our lives, as being a matter of the least moment to a 
brave man. Secondly, our fortunes^ — and lastly, our sacred 
honor as dearer than every thing else. Could not two per- 
sons then have fallen upon this peculiar collocation of words 
without previous consultation ? Is there any thing really 
so unique in the idea, or so striking in the language, as to 
render it impossible, and when found in the writings of two 
individuals, to force the conclusion that one must have 
taken it from the other ? We confess we think not. The 
merit of the idea of a declaration of Independence, the 
reader will recollect is not claimed by Mr. Jefferson. He 
only desires the surpassing credit of having composed the 
one which was actually adopted. We repeat then, does any 
one suppose that this proud distinction could be affected by 
an admitted plagiarism of the one wretched inaccuracy, 
and the three common places from the meagre draft of the 
Mecklenburg committee ? Or that Mr. Jefferson could have 
entertained such an apprehension at the time he wrote the 
unfortunate letter to Mr. Adams ? If he did not, then what 
earthly motive, save the truth, could have prompted him to 
the utterance of a denial so susceptible, by its very nature, 
if false, of being demonstrated to be so to his endless shame 
and infamy? Imagination could not conceive worse folly than 
this, and yet our charitable critic attributes it to Thomas 
Jefferson, " whom his worst enemy never charged with stu- 
pidity," (p. 31,) and availing himself of the perhaps indiscreet 
admission of his biographer, that one paper must have 
been copied from the other, convicts him, as he supposes, 



39 



with the most triumphant satisfaction of having know- 
ingly uttered an infamous falsehood. This view of the 
subject is conclusive to us, and renders it unnecessary 
to examine the evidence upon the subject of the original 
number of the Mecklenburg resolutions. We will only re- 
mark, before quitting this point of the controversy, that it is 
very strange when the subject of Independence was one of 
such profound interest to all America — when Patrick 
Henry had just electrified the people of Virginia by the first 
public allusion to its necessity* — when men's minds were 
agitated with it from Maine to Georgia — when the national 
convention was convulsed with it for weeks — when a 
committee of five of the most distinguished men of the colo- 
nies, from Connecticut to Virginia, were appointed to draft 
a declaration upon it — when the members themselves from 
North Carolina were ignorant of this celebrated Mecklenburg 
Declaration,t is it not strange, we add.th at Mr. Jefferson should 
have been the only man who had seen, or had a copy of it? If 
any one else had enjoyed this distinguished satisfaction, the 
irresistible presumption is, as Mr. Adams says.t that it would 
have rung from one end of the Union to the other, and been 
thundered throuorh the Halls of Congress, into the ears of 
the timid, and the undecided. And could Mr. Jefferson 
have had the audacious boldness then to have borrowed from 
such a paper and under such circumstances ? We leave 
the reader to answer the question. But for the impeachment 
of Mr. Jefferson's veracity, we should have never deemed it 
necessary to have said a word upon the subject. For 
resistance to the purpose for which it is professedly intro- 
duced by the critic, viz. that of contesting Mr. Jefferson's 
claim to originality as the author of the Declaration of In- 



* Vide Wirt's Life of Henry. 

i Vide Mr. Adams' letter to Mr. Jefferson, announcing its discovery. 

t Same letter. 



4U 

dependence, we should have thought one vjord said, 
one word too much. His fame in this particular is 
as little likely to be affected by conviction of having 
borrowed the four phrases from the Mecklenburg com- 
mittee, as Shakspeare's would be by the loss of a single 
canto of the Venus and Adonis, or Milton's by one of his 
Italian sonnets. 

As to the resemblance between the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence and the Constitution of Virginia, or " to speak 
more properly, the list of grievances prefixed to that in- 
strument," we confess it is not at all wonderful, because, 
indeed, they both proceed from the same pen. And 
we must be permitted to say, that in nothing, is the noble 
daring, or the modest assurance of our reverend friend, 
more apparent than in this part of his article, where he 
undertakes to contradict the positive assertion of the biog- 
rapher of Jefferson, upon the strength of the siUiest and 
weakest presumption, upon which a disciple of Duns 
Scotus ever proceeded to form a conclusion. Mr. Tucker 
says, that while the convention in Virginia was engaged in 
framing a constitution, Mr. Jefferson, then in Philadelphia, 
prepared one with a preamble, containing a list of the 
grievances of the colonies, and sent it to his friend, Mr. 
Wythe. That the former one was not adopted for reasons 
which he states, but that the preamble (paper alluded to 
by the critic) was. In opposition to this positive statement 
of the biographer, the reverend gentleman presents this 
most sapient paragraph. 

" On the 11th of August, 1775, Mr. Jefferson was elected 
" a delegate to Congress, for one year, by the convention of 
" Virginia, and on the 20th of June, 1776, was re-elected 
" for another year. The journals to which we have refer- 
" red, show us that George Wythe also was elected with Mr. 
" Jefferson, on both these occasions ; and as the list of mem- 
" bers in the Virginia convention presents us at one time 
" with the name of Mr. Edward Randolph, and at another, of 



41 

"Mr. Prentiss; sitting for Mr. Wythe, we infer, iimt in 1776, 
" while the Virginia constitution was under consideration, 
" Mr. Wythe was in Philadelphia with Mr. Jefferson, at- 
" tending to his duties in Congress ; if this be so, we do 
" not perceive how the hst of grievances coidd have been 
" transmitted to him in Virginia" ! He first takes it for 
granted, that the " Wythe" alluded to by the biographer, 
could have been no other than the George Wythe here 
spoken of, (or if he admits the possibility of its being some 
other person, he allows it no weight in the argument,) 
when it might have been a half dozen others of the same 
name. Having settled this matter thus summarily, he now 
forsooth, from the fact of Mr. Wythe's having been a member 
of both bodies at the same time, and of his having been 
occasionally represented in his absence from the convention 
of Virginia, by two of his friends, assumes that he ^mist 
have been absent in Philadelphia at the time the Virginia 
convention was under consideration, and therefore, could 
not have received the preamble of Mr. Jefferson ! ! This 
is the kind of logic with which our political divine pro- 
ceeds to overthrow the unqualified declaration of a gentle- 
man ! This is the species of reasoning he deems more 
potent than fact ! This is the process by which he ex- 
pects to erase the proud inscription of " Author of the 
Declaration of Independence" from Mr. Jefferson's tomb- 
stone, and to write deep in its stead, the epitaph of infamy ! 
It certainly cannot be necessary to offer a word in refuta- 
tion of such miserable trash. When our pious critic will 
prove that it was the identical George Wythe then in Con- 
gress, to whom the biographer alludes, and when he will 
further prove that the said George Wythe was in Philadel- 
phia at the time the alleged constitution and preamble were 
transmitted by Mr. Jefferson to Virginia, then, we will un- 
dertake to add something else to the evidence which his 
biographer has already afforded of his having been the 
author of the preamble, but not until then. We have now 

6 



42 

done with the subject. We have followed the church 
journal critic through his course of detraction. We have 
endeavored to gather up all the venom which he has 
dropped by the way. He has wreaked all his malice, and has 
long since retired from the work of injury. His passions 
are, perhaps, cool by this time, and we hope he sees 
that in the heady current of his animosity, he has evinced a 
spirit inconsistent with justice, and unbecoming a professor 
of Christianity, We forbear saying aught more that can add 
to the bitterness of his reflections. We only beg that he will 
ponder well upon the following observations of a great man : 
" Politics and the pulpit are terms that have but little 
" agreement. No sound ought to be heard in the church 
'• save the healing voice of christian charity. The cause 
" of civil liberty and civil government gains as little as that 
" of religion by this confusion of duties. Those who quit 
" it their proper character to assume what does not belong 
" to them, are for the greater part ignorant both of the 
" character they leave, and the character they assume. 
" Wholly unacquainted with the world in which they are 
" so fond of meddling, and inexperienced in all its affairs, 
" on which they pronounce with so much confidence, they 
" have nothing of politics but the passions they excite. 
" Surely the church is a place where one day's truce ought 
" to be given to the dissensions and animosities of mankind."* 

Lest we may be thought to have expressed ourselves 
with unwarrantable harshness, we shall be pardoned, we 
hope, if before we conclude, we briefly and summarily call 
the attention of the reader to the life and public services of 
Mr. Jefferson, and the nature of the attack which has been 
made against him. 

In 1767, when the spirit of the revolution first displayed 
itself, in the legislature of Virginia, in opposition to the 

* Burke. 



43 

Taxation Bill, of the Colonial Governor, Jefferson, then a 
youth, and in the ^r^^ year of his public life, took the bold 
step of signing a non-importation agreement, in company 
with Washington, Randolph, Henry, and Lee. In the same 
legislature, fifteen years before a voice had been raised in 
condemnation even of the slave trade^ his great and humane 
mind went so far beyond the age, as to lead him to make a 
proposition for the gradual extinction of domestic slavery. 
In 1773, when public indignation was aroused by the re- 
moval of a citizen of Rhode Island to England for trial, 
and Virginia took a leading part among her sister states in 
the movements consequent upon the act — Jefferson took a 
leading part in Virginia ; first suggested a committee of 
correspondence to communicate with the other colonies, 
and embodied his views in resolutions, and thus originated 
that great measure, the origin of all the others, the great- 
est, by universal acknowledgment, ever adopted by the 
colonies, and one, the glorious distinction of which has been 
the subject of rival claims by Massachusetts and Virginia. 
In 1774, when the Boston Port Bill spread the flame of 
discontent over the whole continent, and the idea of a ge- 
neral Congress was adopted, and delegates elected, it was 
Jefferson who drew up the instructions for those who 
were sent from Virginia — -instructions which afterwards, 
printed under the title of " a summary view of the rights of 
British America," produced an effect which was powerfully 
felt in England, as well as in the colonies. In 1775, he 
prepared the justly celebrated answer to the conciliatory 
propositions of the British government. Elected to the 
national convention in the same year, he was appomted a 
member of the committee to prepare a statement of the rea- 
sons for taking up arms, and drew up the report. In 1776, 
he drafted the Declaration of Independence. In 1777, he 
assisted in framing the municipal code of his native state, 
and was the author of the great fundamental and republican 
measures for abolishing entails — the law of promageniture, 



44 

the preference of males over females — separating the church 
from state, establishing religious toleration, and founding 
primary schools, and the university. To him, more than 
any other man, are we indebted for the republican tendency 
which was given to the administration ol this government 
during the period of the first presidency. For at a time 
when the great minds of Hamilton and Adams, looked with 
distrust upon our infant constitution, by reason of its demo- 
cratic character^ and the so id of Washington himself was 
clouded with doubts, Jeiferson alone spoke withundoubting 
confidence, and looked forward with unshaken faith to the 
result of the great experiment. With the true prophetic 
glance of genius, he penetrated the future, and saw the 
great republic reposing safely beneath the sliade of the in- 
stitutions, then ihe object of such anxious sohcitude. By 
the influence of his talents and character, in the cabinet of 
Washington, he may be said to have prevented this country 
from being plunged into a war with Great Britain, to 
gratify the mad enthusiasm of the friends of revolutionary 
France. He administered the government while President, 
with the most prosperous results, with the profoundest wis- 
dom, and with the strictest accordance with true republican 
principles; acquired the vast and invaluable" terrritory of 
Louisiana, and kept his country in peace, and preserved its 
honor inviolate at a time when the whole civilized world 
echoed with the clang of arms. 

It is this man — thus perilling his life and fortune 
in earliest youth, in defence of his country's rights, 
and afterwards devoting his whole life to her service — 
crowned in succession with all the highest honors that 
a grateful republic could confer — discharging with sa- 
cred fidelity all his social obligations — passing the even- 
ing of his days in philosophical thought — the oracle to 
whom men looked in every danger that threatened our 
infant government — the object of proud contemplation 
and affectionate interest to two continents, and sinking into 



45 

his grave with the accumulated and accumulating grati- 
tude of millions — who has been dragged back before the 
world, and charged by the clergyman of the Church Jour- 
nal, with vanity, egotism, uncharitableness, inhumanity, 
meanness, jealousy, fiend-like hate, hypocrisy, treachery, 
falsehood, cowardice, alms-begging, and infidelity. " Whose 
policy" he has stigmatized '• as the cunning of selfishness," 
and "whose friendship the treachery of deceit." Between 
the assumption of whose nature, and that of one, whom 
he has described as possessing '• a devil's spirit linked to a 
brute's propensities," and as not having " enough of man 
left about him to make a christian out of," he has said that 
one would long hesitate, if forced upon the hard alterna- 
tive of choosing !* 

As for the consequences to Mr. Jefferson's reputation, we 
have but little fear. It is as safe from the eflfusions of clerical 
hate as the fixed star from the influence of earth's noxious ex- 
halations. Theriver of his fame is rolling rapidly on to poste- 
rity, and it is as idle for the clergyman of the Church Jour- 
nal to attempt to break its stream, as it would be for him to 
stay Niagara in its course, and hurl back its waters. He has 
erected for himself a monument broader and more im- 
perishable than the largest of Egypt's kings. The Van- 
dals of criticism cannot break it, nor stain its whiteness. It 
is in the hearts of millions of grateful people. His fame 
stands identified with the institutions of our country, and 
should they be destined to overshadow the earth, it will be 
coextensive. The grandeur of his genius is for ever 
blended with the majesty of that period in the history of 
the human mind, when the great truth of man's capacity 
for self government was first discovered. Bacon's name is 
not more indissolubly connected with the emancipation of 



♦Vide an article from the same hand upon Davis' Life of Burr, in the last 
number of the New-Vork Review.— pp. 10, 183, 213. 



46 

the human intellect from a false philosophy — Newton's 
with the great revelation in natural science — Columbus' 
with the discovery of this continent — than is that of 
Thomas Jefferson, with the proudest epoch in the history 
of human reason and human action. It stands, giving and 
taking light. We plead guilty to the charge of veneration 
for his memory, and that of our patriot forefathers. 
We watched them as they lingered upon earth, with a 
reverential respect, linked as they were with the history of 
the sublime past, and the hopes of a bright futurity. And 
when we heard of Jefferson, and Adams, and Monroe, de- 
scending to their graves, it was with something of the same 
feelino^ with which we may suppose the celebrated travel- 
ler,* after crossing the equator, saw those stars go down 
with which he had been famihar from his infancy. If 
there is any human heart that €an take pleasure in soiling 
their fair fame, we thank God it has nothing in common 
with the one in our bosom. For our own part, we cherish 
the recollection of their greatness with something of the 
melancholy tenderness with which the lover dwells upon 
the virtues of his lost mistress. We love to believe them 
great. We love to look at them enshrouded in the glory 
of their great deeds, and our imagination would fain lend 
them additional splendor, to consecrate their memory. 
We love to gaze at them, shining like stars in the milky 
way of history, and should be sorry to have the brilliancy 
of one tarnished, or taken from the constellation. 



* Humboldt. 



sd w 



'%, 









v-'?^^<v^' '%'-^4>yj^^ x'^m^^^^^ 










ft' ♦' 





















* .'^wa « -<?y c*" .'i^gia'- t^ J' /^ 












'•>^^^- 
.♦^-v 









w*\'i;^^V /.'i^.A .**.1'^^,V .c 










